3 ms·
>Nobody is interested in less federal funding unless it also means lower federal taxes. Except for the crazy Republicans (governors mostly) who voted not to ac
by pilom 13y ago
>Nobody is interested in less federal funding unless it also means lower federal taxes.
Except for the crazy Republicans (governors mostly) who voted not to accept federal dollars for public transit funding or who voted not to expand Medicare coverage "Because its part of Obamacare and thats bad!" The Federal government would have paid for it?!?!
- dragonwriter 13y agoNitpick: Medicaid, not Medicare. Completely different programs.
- AnthonyMouse 13y agoBut they don't want the federal government to pay for things like that. Money for those kinds of programs ends up concentrated in the high population states. Moreover, if they implement the program then it's permanent. Their own federal legislators could no longer go to Washington and argue for repeal because they'll have the constituents in their own districts up in arms if they try to cancel a program their constituents are already receiving benefits under. Whereas if the governors refuse the money then the state's federal legislators will have every incentive to fight to have the money stripped from the budget in future years. The response from Blue State governors should be to refuse federal "Homeland Security" money. Give their own legislators cover to repeal that. I mean really, how many police departments legitimately need more SWAT teams?